Personally I think it will make for lots of extra pointless games where the top teams hammer poor sides, or games where the lower ranked nations just try not to get beaten. Groups will be decided almost before a ball is kicked. Sure there will be the odd surprise but it would dilute it too much. We already have teams like Saudi Arabie qualifying for the WC and getting demolished. I'd rather something was done with the qualifying formats.

It would be better to have two tournaments following the qualifying competitions.

One with 32 countries from around the world - say the International Trophy. The the best 8 of which qualify for the World Cup proper joining the 24 best teams to make another 32 team competition.

That way, poor sides from second and third tier regions get to compete internationally, and the better ones qualify for the World Cup.

I would also reform the European qualifying process to reduce the number of games. Have more groups, all of four teams only. The group winners go straight into the pot of 24 best teams for the World Cup proper. The second place teams go into the International Trophy to fight for a place as one of the 8.

It would be better to have two tournaments following the qualifying competitions.

One with 32 countries from around the world. The the best 8 of which qualify for the World Cup proper joining the 24 best teams to make another 32 team competition.

That way, poor sides from second and third tier regions get to compete internationally, and the better ones qualify for the World Cup.

A similar proposal is among the list of possibilities;The five options the 37-member Fifa council will choose from are:

- A 48-team World Cup consisting of 16 groups of three, with the top two sides qualifying for a last-32 knockout stage (80 games in total);- Another 48-team version consisting of a 32-team, one-game knockout round, with the winners joining 16 already-qualified teams (80 games - 16 in preliminary and 64 in main tournament);- Expanding it to 40 teams, with 10 groups of four and only six group runners-up advancing (76 games);- A 40-team tournament with eight groups of five (88 games);- Keeping the World Cup at its present size of 32 teams (64 games).

Unless you're from Wales, Iceland or Portugal (maybe France as well) the Euros last year were the worst for a long, long time, so it wouldn't take much for something to 'make the tournament'. The fact that Portugal won and Wales got to the semi final are proof enough. The Portugal-Croatia second round match was one of the worst matches of football in living memory and the lack of goals in the group stage was exceptionally poor. From memory, I think it was Hungary v Portugal, towards the end of the third group games, that more than 3 goals in a game were scored. It was hardly an advert for expanding a tournament as most underdogs set out to try and draw.

Good grief !!!! I agree. There is a lot to enjoy about a backs to the wall David v Goliath performance

Completely agree.

When up against world leading strikers, the intensity builds and builds. When you enter the last ten minutes and you know the game will be lost by one lapse of concentration by the defence, or one side-step in the wrong direction by a defender to give a striker an inch to get in on goal, then the pressure and anxiety watching the game is immense. And equally, the top top sides will have to try even more fantastic passing triangles or individual pieces of brilliance to break through - and I do not think there is anyone who can say top class high intensity attacking play is not exciting.

What the Euros did show was how slow and uncreative attacking teams were. Excitement should come from teams improving their attacks to overcome strong defences, not from defences being so weak that middle of the road plodders can score.

I'm not talking about backs to the wall defending. I'm talking about actual rubbish performances. England, Russia, Poland, Belgium, Switzerland, Ukraine, Ireland, Spain, Czech Rep., Austria, Romania, Albania, even the winners Portugal, were BAD. It was poor football and most mid-table Premier League teams would have beaten them comfortably. I can live with a lot of high-quality 0-0's or 1-0's, but it wasn't high-quality, it was mostly dross. Iceland's performances were great, because they had a game plan of defend hard and then break. Most of the other teams I mentioned played well within themselves, too many star players didn't show up.

Their close control and passing. Little triangles, sidesteps and drops of the shoulder. Fonte stepping forward to intercept through balls. Fullbacks dummying and turning and playing a simple pass.

It looks simple and almost un-noticeable, but that's because to them it is, which is why we always think English players (who can't play with that skill quality) are good because it looks like they are playing fast and exciting play, when their technical ability is so much worse.